MoreRSS

site iconThe New YorkerModify

The full text is output by feedx. A weekly magazine since 1925, blends insightful journalism, witty cartoons, and literary fiction into a cultural landmark.
Please copy the RSS to your reader, or quickly subscribe to:

Inoreader Feedly Follow Feedbin Local Reader

Rss preview of Blog of The New Yorker

A Greenlandic Photographer’s Tender Portraits of Daily Life

2025-12-06 19:06:02

2025-12-06T11:00:00.000Z

The thirty-six-year-old Greenlandic photographer Inuuteq Storch didn’t know much about Inuit culture growing up. In school, for instance, he was taught about ancient Greek deities, but there was no talk of a native pantheon of gods. About ninety per cent of the Greenlandic population are Lutherans, a legacy of Danish colonial rule. So thoroughly did European missionaries stigmatize Inuit beliefs that, even now, the more pious members of an older generation consider an appreciation of Indigenous spirits to be a sign of something demonic afoot. The word “Torngarsuk”—a shape-shifting Inuit spirit believed to assist shamans—is today used as a swear word. Storch, though, saw in the deity an opportunity to rediscover the culture of his ancestors. Four years ago, he got a tattoo of Torngarsuk along the span of his left forearm, in the form of a bearlike creature with beady eyes. In a recent conversation, he described himself as part of a generation of younger Greenlanders trying to rediscover Inuit traditions. “We talk about how our culture has been erased,” he said, “and what we know now from the past.”

A scooter parked in front of a landscape with water in the background.
From “Keepers of the Ocean,” 2019.

Tattoos themselves were among the Inuit practices suppressed by European settlers, and they turn up throughout the fifty-four photographs on view in Storch’s current solo exhibition at MOMA P.S.1., “Soon Will Summer Be Over.” One image features a man stretching open his jacket collar to reveal intricate curlicues and radial lines extending from his Adam’s apple, like something bursting forth from within. Storch took the photos across Greenland between 2015 and 2025, capturing offhanded tableaux and candid portraits of the people around him caught in mundane moments: eating, taking out the trash, catnapping in sleeping bags.

A person showing their intricate neck tattoo.
From “What if You Were My Sabine?,” 2025.
A person sleeping on a couch.
From “What if You Were My Sabine?,” 2025.
An elderly man smoking a pipe.
From “Keepers of the Ocean,” 2019.
Boys laying in the sun.
From “Soon Will Summer Be Over,” 2023.

The stark Greenlandic landscape is a persistent presence in Storch’s photos, and low, horizontal sunlight is everywhere. In one of Storch’s pictures, an old man on a wooden porch angles his face up toward the sun. In another, a knockout image featuring two children resting on their backs, sunlight blazes with an almost divisive intent, turning one child’s eyeglasses opaque with its glare while leaving his friend’s face in shadow. Looking at Storch’s work, my mind went to Emily Dickinson’s musings on a “certain Slant of light, Winter Afternoons.” But Dickinson was observing her world at a latitude of forty-two degrees. Sunlight means something else entirely in photos made above or near the Arctic Circle, where noon could strike in darkness, depending on the season, and where golden hour might be a nearly constant affair. Storch told me that, at this time of year, sunsets last much longer in Greenland: “Fiery and very slow. Colorful.”

A skinned whale.
From “Soon Will Summer Be Over,” 2023.
A man and woman embracing.
From “Keepers of the Ocean,” 2019.

Storch grew up in Sisimiut, a town of some fifty-five hundred people, with no intention of becoming an artist. His father, a professional baker, would sometimes ask him to do menial tasks in the kitchen. Storch would scrub pans to the sound of public radio, its volume turned way up to cut through the sounds of machinery. In his free time, he liked playing music and building things, including paper airplanes augmented with specialized folds. He planned to become an engineer, but discovered an interest in photography through skateboarding, documenting his friends performing tricks. In 2009, he staged a small photo show at a local venue, whose director suggested that he attend Fatamorgana, a photography school in Copenhagen. He enrolled there, then did another year of training at the International Center for Photography, in New York.

A boy seated at a table with a plate of pasta in front of him.
From “Soon Will Summer Be Over,” 2023.
A woman sitting in a cluttered home.
From “Soon Will Summer Be Over,” 2023.
An artic landscape.
From “What if You Were My Sabine?,” 2025.
A concrete building.
From “What if You Were My Sabine?,” 2025.

Before Donald Trump began calling for the United States to annex Greenland—a prospect that a reported eighty-five per cent of Greenlanders oppose—plenty of Americans hadn’t given much thought to Greenland. American curators and critics certainly hadn’t. Now Storch is navigating the art world’s inclination to cast him as a cultural ambassador of some kind. Last year, he became the first Greenlander to represent Denmark at the Venice Biennale, and while there he pasted letters spelling “KALAALLIT NUNAAT,” the Greenlandic term for the island, over the word “DANMARK,” on the façade of Denmark’s pavilion. At the P.S. 1 show, a video work titled “Anachronism” features grainy, archival footage shot by other Greenlanders, forming a kind of collective portrait: a child exposing the teeth of a freshly hunted polar bear; a view from the hazy window of a twin-engine prop plane. At the same time, Storch is resistant to the idea that he’s somehow representing Greenlandic culture to the outside world. “I’m not saying, ‘This is us,’ ” he explained. “I’m just saying, ‘This is every day.’ ”

A group of teenagers near a yellow pickup truck.
From “Keepers of the Ocean,” 2019.
A red house with a white window.
From “Keepers of the Ocean,” 2019.
Snow falling.
From “Keepers of the Ocean,” 2019.
A person holding a dog on a leash.

From “Keepers of the Ocean,” 2019.

Storch mines his own family albums and artifacts, as in the series “Porcelain Souls,” which features a slide carousel projecting photos that Storch’s parents took and letters they sent each other from across the North Atlantic. These scrapbook contents are shown at P.S.1 alongside Storch’s own photographs—a friend in a field of flowers, with a beer bottle in hand, or a group of young people piled into a canary-yellow pickup truck. His work has something in common with that of a young Ryan McGinley, whose point-and-shoot approach was similarly inspired by skater culture, and who also created images of social scenes that doubled as portraits of a time and a place. But whereas McGinley’s grittily intimate style had an erotic edge, Storch’s is tenderly attentive. One of his photo series, “What if You Were My Sabine?,” features images of houseplants, Soviet-style apartment blocks, and nighttime snow. It was named after the Greenlandic former lover of the Danish photographer Jacob Aue Sobol, who made a book of black-and-white pictures set in east Greenland, where he lived with Sabine and her family. Storch considers that book an authentic depiction of living in Kalaallit Nunaat, “because it’s not about Greenland life. It’s about his love with her,” he said. With his own work, Storch has landed on a similar approach. “I was, like, What am I? Who am I in my home town?” he explained. “Turns out, I’m friends and family.”

A person smoking a cigarette.
From “Porcelain Souls,” 2018.

A Holiday Gift Guide: Gear for the Coffee Nerd

2025-12-06 19:06:02

2025-12-06T11:00:00.000Z
When you make a purchase using a link on this page, we may receive a commission. Thank you for supporting The New Yorker.

You probably know somebody who loves coffee: drinking coffee, making coffee, and, above all, talking about coffee. If so, please accept my condolences, along with a hard truth: there is no way to cure this condition, nor to lessen the distress of those who suffer on account of their proximity to it. Just know that, while you happily slurp your morning cup of whatever, the coffee obsessive in your life wakes up every day and braces for disappointment, and quite possibly despair. Espresso is a technological marvel; a delicious shot can require thousands of dollars’ worth of equipment and lots of practice, not to mention whatever milk or milky liquid is required. But plain (or “filter,” or “drip”) coffee is fiendishly, infuriatingly simple. Ground coffee and hot water, mixed and then separated. What could go wrong? Just about everything, it turns out. The process can be exceedingly finicky, which is what makes it fun, if you have a suitably expansive definition of “fun.” It turns out that a plain cup of black coffee need not be plain at all, once you learn to draw out and enjoy the kinds of strange flavors (floral? tangy? tannic?) that many coffee drinkers would just as soon avoid. Best of all, this is the kind of hobby that requires only a relatively modest investment of money, along with an absolutely immodest investment of time and attention. If you want to improve (or, perhaps, ruin) the morning routine of a coffee drinker in your life, here are some suggestions.

Ground Down

Coffee gear

Comandante grinder 

One reason a coffee obsession is cheaper than, say, a wine obsession: coffee is much more perishable, which means it generally won’t hold its value. Once roasted, coffee should be consumed within a couple of months; once ground, it should be brewed almost immediately. And so any serious home brewer needs a grinder that can reliably pulverize coffee into particles of uniform size: no boulders, no dust. If you would like to spend a lot on a grinder, you certainly can. The EG-1 ($4,095), from Weber Workshops, is a beautiful contraption that resembles a telescope, with an angled barrel that deposits your coffee into a small tumbler. If you’re shopping for a serious home brewer, upgrade to a set of flat Core burrs ($250 extra), for superior precision. For less than a tenth of the price, you could buy a Comandante C40 ($290), a satisfyingly solid hand grinder that resembles a militarized pepper mill. But many daily brewers will want a reliable electric burr grinder, such as the Ode Brew Grinder Gen 2 ($400), from Fellow; for an entry-level alternative, try the Encore ($120), from Baratza.

Image may contain: Microscope

EG-1 grinder 

Drip Too Hard

Image may contain: Cup, Saucer, and Bowl

Kalita Wave 155 

The most addictive way to brew coffee also happens to be the most low-tech: put some coffee in a cone and pour water over it. By varying the speed and the shape of your pour, along with the grind size of the coffee, you can create a wide spectrum of results, from undrinkable to undrinkable, with delicious somewhere in between. The Kalita Wave 155 ($34) resembles a stainless-steel teacup, with three holes in the bottom to let your brewed coffee slowly drip into the vessel below; you’ll need a pack of size-155 filters ($8 for a hundred), and perhaps a small glass carafe ($27). Alternatively, the V60 Ceramic Coffee Dripper 01 ($20), from Hario, has one big hole at the bottom, which means that the coffee can flow more quickly out of your filter. (This dripper gives you more control, which means it’s less forgiving.) For anyone who insists upon automation, Fellow’s Aiden Precision Coffee Maker ($400) does its own pouring, but allows users to fiddle with the timing. And, for true simplicity, an old-fashioned French press can still make a very tasty cup of coffee, especially when paired with a superior grinder; buy one from Bodum ($15 and up) or upgrade to Espro ($37 and up), but don’t worry too much about insulation, because you probably don’t want your freshly brewed coffee to be sitting—and stewing—in the French press for any longer than it has to.

Image may contain: Pottery, Cup, Cookware, and Pot

Bodum French press

In Hot Water

If you’re using a French press, any kettle will do. But if you’re using a cone, you will probably want to avoid dumping all your water into the cone at once, which means you will need a kettle with a long, thin spout. Plenty of stovetop gooseneck kettles are available, although they require some monitoring: when the water boils, the neck may start to spit. Coffee lovers with sufficient counter space may prefer electric models, like the Greater Goods electric kettle ($65) or the Stagg EKG ($180 and up), which have variable temperature control—useful because many coffee-brewing recipes call for water that is not quite boiling.

Image may contain: Cookware, Pot, and Kettle

Stagg EKG kettle 

Weighty

If you’re going to go to the trouble of carefully grinding your own coffee and pouring water slowly over the grounds, you may as well use a digital scale to insure the proper ratio. (One rule of thumb is six grams of coffee per hundred grams of water, although opinions differ.) Just about any scale will work, as long as it is reasonably durable, with a maximum capacity of at least a kilogram or two. My own battery-powered Escali kitchen scale ($32) is sleek and functional, and has never objected to being scalded or drenched. If you pay close attention at coffee shops, you may notice that many of them use the Pearl ($150), by Acaia, a blocky scale designed for coffee: the display is helpfully bright, so it won’t be outshone by your kitchen lights, and it includes both a timer and a gauge that shows how quickly or slowly you are pouring, just in case you’re trying to figure out what you did right, or wrong.

Image may contain: Computer Hardware, Electronics, Hardware, Monitor, Screen, Scale, Credit Card, and Text

Escali kitchen scale 

Watery

No one likes watery coffee, which is why coffee drinkers sometimes say they take their coffee “strong.” (In fact, the perceived strength of a cup of coffee may reflect its concentration, or its degree of extraction, or its roast level—three separate qualities, although they interact.) But of course water is the main ingredient of coffee, which means that, if you care a lot about how your coffee tastes, you should also care a lot about how your water tastes. I happen to enjoy the taste of New York City tap water, but not everyone loves what comes out of their faucet. One easy solution is to start with distilled or demineralized water, either from a filter or from your local supermarket, and then add minerals back in, to fine-tune the taste of your coffee. Apax Lab makes a set of three mineral concentrates in dropper bottles ($65), which you can add in varying amounts. When I am somewhere with suboptimal tap water, I prefer an even simpler approach: small packets of mineral powder ($17 for twelve) from a company called Third Wave Water; simply add a packet to a gallon of distilled water, shake well, and start brewing.

Image may contain: Bottle, Lotion, and Box

Apax Lab gift set

Coffee to Go

Coffee shops are everywhere, but if you have become the kind of person who brews coffee with a digital scale, you may find that delectable coffee can be hard to find. For a coffee lover on the road, one indispensable gadget is the AeroPress Go ($40), a small, lightweight plastic cylinder that brews quite nice coffee by plunging hot water through a bed of grounds atop a paper filter. (It also makes a tasty cup of iced coffee—just use half as much water, and put an equivalent amount of ice in your cup.) The KINGrinder P2 ($44) is a lightweight hand grinder that slips snugly inside the AeroPress Go, although AeroPress also sells its own compatible travel grinder ($200). You may also need a portable scale (Weightman Espresso scale, $14), and maybe a portable kettle—do not, under any circumstances, attempt to brew real coffee using the warmish water from a hotel Keurig machine. Brentwood makes a funny-looking but functional collapsible kettle ($26), and a number of other companies manufacture cylindrical versions. One from Sekaer ($28) is more streamlined, but also a bit heavier. And by far the most important product for a coffee lover in transit is a thermos. Kinto’s travel tumbler ($34) is a handsome receptacle available in a number of colors, with a lid that screws on tight and enough insulation to keep a cup of coffee warm all day long.

In an Instant

More Gift Guides

Our writers recommend what to give this holiday season.

Perhaps you know someone who wants to make coffee without, you know, making coffee? A rather paradoxical desire, but evidently an abiding one. Instant coffee is more than a hundred years old, and although coffee companies are always claiming to have improved upon the process of making it, and although many high-end coffee roasters now sell their own instant coffee, I haven’t yet tasted one that is more savory than the brown liquid you are likely to get from, say, a flight attendant with a rolling cart. In pursuit of convenience, a company called Steeped is putting ground coffee into tea bags, working with roasters including La Cabra ($31-$35 for a “seasonal bundle” of twelve bags); all you need is boiling water, plus enough patience to dunk vigorously and then wait for about five minutes. The best version of instant coffee comes from Cometeer, which sells little pucks of frozen coffee concentrate that are at least comparable to the real thing; they are available at select supermarkets and cafés, or online, where the order price (gift packs start at $100 for thirty-two capsules) includes the cost of dry-ice packaging.

At Last . . . Coffee

None of this coffee gear is helpful if you have no coffee to brew. (I have occasionally found myself in this pitiable position.) Plenty of coffee drinkers enjoy medium or dark roasts, which tend to pair well with milk and other adulterants. But black-coffee obsessives sometimes gravitate toward very light roasts, which are a bit more polarizing and, not coincidentally, can be harder to find. Hydrangea, an excellent little roaster in Berkeley, California, specializes in “light, fruit-forward, experimental coffees”; a basic subscription ($27 per shipment) delivers one eight-ounce bag every four weeks. If you would like to simultaneously gratify and insult the coffee lover in your life, consider a gift from People Possession, a Parisian roastery known for strange and delicious coffees, and for unapologetically obnoxious marketing. Many of its coffees are sold in cans, for no particularly good reason; Iridescence ($35), a tea-like coffee from Panama, is sold in a can that has been crumpled, although, the roasters note, “This process is completely useless and in no way alters the taste of the coffee you are about to consume.” ♦

“The Beast in Me” Is at War with Itself

2025-12-06 19:06:02

2025-12-06T11:00:00.000Z

Aggie Wiggs, a famous Pulitzer Prize-winning writer, is living in a home that is far too big for her in Oyster Bay, a wealthy enclave on Long Island. The home is too big for her because the family she once had is gone. Her envy-inducing Victorian house, wrapped in floral wallpaper and outfitted with plush rugs, still has a warmth to it, but this warmth portends sickness, fever. The pipes rattle. There are ticking sounds. The sink gurgles like an infant, spitting up rusty water.

A woman and her house—it’s the stuff that gives gothic fiction its life spark. And it’s what animates “The Beast in Me,” a thriller starring Claire Danes and Matthew Rhys, on Netflix. The series is twitching, but it’s not really alive. There is, in the end, a deadness to its clichés about writers and their subjects. It’s “The Journalist and the Murderer,” rotted with overplotting and kitsch. But that doesn’t mean I didn’t love the show, or its pretensions to real storytelling, given how offensively rote some television has become.

Danes plays Aggie, who is miserable as an act of defiance. Her permanent expression is a scowl; her gait, as she walks around her private community with her dog, a discordantly cute white ball of fluff named Steve, is a hunched march. Aggie is only half living in the world—she’s mostly dodging it. This is the condition of writers. This is the condition of grief. Of the many incarnations of the narcissist, there is the braggart, and there is also the neurotic. Aggie, who we occasionally see muttering at her desk, is the latter. The first shot of “The Beast in Me” reveals her character covered in blood, doing an Edvard Munch scream. (Danes is the premier television actor of anxiety.) Most of us forget that “The Scream,” which we can more or less conjure in our minds, is a painting about subjectivity. Often neglected are the two whorled figures, strolling placidly in the background. They are unaware or, worse, unbothered by the agony of the foregrounded. Aggie is living in that kind of pained isolation until she meets Nile Jarvis (Rhys), the scion of a real-estate dynasty, who sees in Aggie a kindred spirit.

What is the opposite of a meet-cute? One afternoon, enormous guard dogs ambush Aggie’s door. (The dog motif runs through “The Beast in Me.”) They are the sentinels of Nile, who has moved to the neighborhood from Manhattan. Nile is skeletal like Jared Kushner; his thinness is foreboding, marking a disavowal of all that is sensual. When we first encounter him, he is drinking beet juice, which we immediately interpret as a symbol for blood. A scandal has driven him out of the city: everyone thinks he killed his ex-wife, Madison, who went missing one day. His new wife, Nina (Brittany Snow), an art dealer who is also Madison’s former assistant, gleams with insecurity.

Nile is keen to build a jogging path in the woods of his new community. Everyone besides Aggie has acquiesced. Through various intrusions—like the dogs and, later, an unwelcome crate of wine—he coaxes her to visit his estate. He wants that path. He also wants to conquer Aggie. It’s not really about sex. (Aggie is gay, for one, and although Nile is a brute, he’s not a brute in that way.) Rather, it’s about the despoiling of an intellectual. “The Beast in Me” is living in an antiquated version of New York, one in which writers still hold sway. The rustic chic of Aggie’s world gives way to the greige and overexposure of Nile’s universe. In many scenes, Nile is overblasted with light so that the crevices of his eyes appear like sinks. He is visually tabloid. In his office one day, he pulls out a copy of Aggie’s hit book “Sick Puppy,” which is about her father, who is shaded vaguely as a malevolent force, and Nile delivers his sharp assessment. Aggie, he diagnoses, is self-isolating, and her struggle with her current writing project—a book about the “unlikely friendship” between Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Antonin Scalia—indicates that she has not dealt with the death of her eight-year-old son, Cooper, who died in a car crash. Hence the first shot of Aggie, bloodied and screaming. Aggie is appalled at Nile’s presumptuousness, his entitlement. But she is also intrigued.

Like its characters, “The Beast in Me” is pedigreed. Danes and Rhys carry the legacy of great paranoia television between them—with “Homeland” and “The Americans,” respectively. Howard Gordon, the producer who shepherded not only “Homeland” but also “The X-Files” to screen, lifted the initial script by Gabe Rotter out of development limbo. Jodie Foster and Conan O’Brien are among the producers. Antonio Campos, the creator of “The Staircase,” directed a good chunk of the series’ eight episodes. In television about New York City power, you must often suffer through featurelessness. (See “Black Rabbit,” also on Netflix.) “The Beast in Me” drills down on the specifics. There are on-the-money allusions to the Gagosian, and to the colluding marriage of the art and real-estate worlds. (Madison, too, was a gallerist.) Aggie has a framed copy of her Profile in The New Yorker. Jarvis Industries is building a development that is straight-up called Jarvis Yards.

Nile’s diagnosis of Aggie is correct. She continues to haunt her ex, Shelley (Natalie Morales), a painter who decamped to Bushwick, unable to deal with Aggie’s unprocessed rage. Aggie is a storyteller, after all, and there is a narrative she needs to control. On the day of the crash, she was at the wheel while Cooper was in the backseat; she collided with another vehicle, driven by a teen-ager named Teddy Fenig (Bubba Weiler), who later took a blood-alcohol test in which he measured almost precisely at the legal limit. Teddy may have been vindicated by the law, but Aggie blames him for her son’s death, and she’s tortured by the fact that she still has to see him hanging around town. At lunch with Nile, her good sense already eroding, she blurts out her hatred of Teddy. Not much time passes before the teen-ager disappears, just like Madison. Warnings abound. Detective Brian Abbott (David Lyons), an alcoholic F.B.I. agent, begs Aggie to keep her distance from Nile, as does her agent, Carol McGiddish (Deirdre O’Connell). But Aggie cannot resist the story before her. When Nile exhorts Aggie to abandon her draft of the SCOTUS book and write an authorized biography about him instead (“People want gossip and carnage!” Nile tells her), she thrills to the idea. “Carol, this would be huge,” Aggie says in a book meeting, her lips quivering. “What I know is, I haven’t seen that look in your eye in a long time,” Carol replies.

“The Beast in Me” is internally confused. The visual aesthetic is delicious nineteen-seventies conspiracy noir: the split-diopter shot, the deep focus. But the plot is simultaneously excessive and elementary, laden with unnecessary and uninspired divergences. A scene in which Abbott is blindfolded and brought to a meeting with a group of hackers almost ended it for me. Why stay? I am not the first to compare Aggie and Nile’s dynamic to that of Andrew Jarecki and Robert Durst in the phenomenon that was “The Jinx.” Nile, like Durst, is the prototypical bad seed, whose violent eccentricities present a threat to his family’s real-estate dynasty. And yet his father, Martin Jarvis (Jonathan Banks), the original magnate, reluctantly, almost as penance for unleashing this child unto the world, abets the sociopathy of his son.

Because “The Beast in Me” is fiction, it cannot morally compromise its viewers the way “The Jinx” did with its outrageous finale reveal: footage of Durst, caught on a hot mike, seemingly confessing to murder. Nile makes a similar soliloquy—also while he’s being recorded, unbeknownst to him (“Of course I fucking killed her,” he says, of Madison)—but, at that point, the viewer already knows him to be a killer, and the bad-seed explanation is meant to satisfy us. The energy of moral questioning, then, is shifted onto the show’s Jarecki figure: the storyteller, Aggie.

The trials of the storyteller are long, the vanity of her ambition leading her to the bottom. Nile is capable of killing Aggie, but he does something worse: he frames her for the murder of Teddy. Teddy is found, bound and asphyxiated, in Cooper’s bedroom, which Aggie cannot bear to enter. It’s a good enough metaphor, the object of Aggie’s eroding anger festering in the fetal position within the temple of her grief. And yet the show shirks in confronting the one interesting question about Aggie: Was being both a mother and a writer a doomed prospect for her, an incompatibility? In flashbacks, the question of who is at fault in Cooper’s death is much more ambiguous than Aggie lets on in her state of eclipsing grief. She was distracted at the wheel on the day of the crash, taking a phone interview with a reporter at the Times. (The quality of her motherhood is depicted as fatherly—she was the preoccupied, overworked breadwinner.) The show does not reveal this until the finale, as if a twist. Cooper’s death wasn’t Aggie’s fault, nor was it Teddy’s; it was an accident. “The Beast in Me” demeans Aggie, all the damage she wrought, making a psychological torment conform to the machinery of a mystery plot.

Ultimately, the series gives too much gravity to the writer-subject dialectic. Nile is carted off to prison, where he will meet his demise. Toward the end of the series, Aggie finds that Nile broke into her home and edited her manuscript. He crossed out the working title—“The Beast and Me”—and replaced it with “The Beast in Me.” It’s an indictment of Aggie’s own bloodlust, her eagerness to deny all the signs that Nile, the subject of her book, was behind Teddy’s disappearance. (Perhaps a part of her was glad that Teddy was gone, that he was suffering, and that his mother was suffering.) It’s a hackneyed rumination on how writers and subjects are equally corrosive animals. But there is no parallel resolution to Aggie’s relationship to her role as a mother, to her gnawing grief and its consequences. She reckons with her culpability only as a writer, never as a parent. ♦

Olga Tokarczuk Recommends Visionary Science Fiction

2025-12-06 19:06:02

2025-12-06T11:00:00.000Z

The Nobel Prize winner Olga Tokarczuk’s fiction is known for its interest in the porosity of boundaries—between nations, between ethnicities, between fiction and reality, consciousness and dreams. As her novels and stories stage the constant flux of national borders, particularly in Eastern Europe (Tokarczuk is Polish), they also delight in supernatural and science-fictional elements. In “House of Day, House of Night,” out from Riverhead this week, she writes, “All over the world, wherever people are sleeping, small, jumbled worlds are flaring up in their heads, growing over reality like scar tissue.” Not long ago, Tokarczuk sent us some remarks about a few of her favorite sci-fi and speculative-fiction writers, whose books mix the fantastical and the prosaic masterfully. Her notes were translated by Antonia Lloyd-Jones.

The Star Diaries

by Stanisław Lem

I started reading science fiction at an early age. I was quite sure that by the time I grew up we’d be flying to Mars and the moon without a second thought. I was going to work in space medicine or as a physicist. At first I read books for young people, but Stanisław Lem was my true initiation into the genre. My favorite of his books are “The Star Diaries,” about a lone space traveller and scientist named Ijon Tichy, and “The Cyberiad,” a set of stories about robots and intelligent machines.

Lem was way ahead of his time, especially on the topic of machine intelligence. He had a superb sense of humor and a unique genius for discovering all sorts of paradoxes; his writing challenges the imagination, posing the sorts of questions that are the subjects of philosophical studies. In the story “The Seventh Journey,” Ijon’s spaceship falls into a time loop, resulting in a swarm of different Ijons from different parts of the same day. Which is the “real” one? Nowadays, I’d tell myself the real one is the one who’s telling the story. The real one is the observer.

As we’re mesmerized by artificial intelligence today, going back to Lem’s stories, which anticipated every kind of intelligent machine, is a must.

Ubik

by Philip K. Dick

Most sci-fi doesn’t depend on literary refinement. It’s more about conveying a concept, a paradox, a vision. Sometimes the vision is so powerful, and the desire to express it so intense, that it reduces language to its most pragmatic role: pure communication. I think Philip K. Dick was a great visionary. He was the first writer to create a truly moving vision of a disintegrating world, and of the thin line between what’s real and what’s produced by our brains. The multiplicity, diversity, and innovation of his work changed not just sci-fi but literature in general. In an incredibly modern and acute way, it considers questions that humankind has been asking itself for centuries.

In Poland, Lem was a great promoter of Dick, and they corresponded until Dick decided Lem wasn’t a person but a spy network called L.E.M. I started with “Ubik,” and will never forget its depiction of reality coming apart: modern objects suddenly change into ancient ones, food instantly goes bad, technology loses its power. Only the temporarily awakened dead, and a polymorphous product known as Ubik, can help. We may read the story as a metaphor for a disintegrating mind, but also for a “fallen cosmos” that must be constantly kept going by an unknown force.

Dick’s work hasn’t aged at all. He is probably read even more keenly today, when the loss of so many realities at once makes us yearn for what’s true and real—for some sort of metaphysical order to combat the depression that’s grown ubiquitous.

Hothouse

by Brian Aldiss

I still remember my first encounter with “Hothouse,” a farsighted, hallucinatory, surreal book about the Earth billions of years from now. Humans are no longer the masters of creation; that role belongs to small mammals amid highly evolved, intelligent plants. The Earth resembles one large vegetable organism, and plants are also colonizing outer space. This book, written in 1962, introduced the idea that trees are a single vast intercommunicating organism, a reality that science confirmed sixty years later. I infected my father with my love of this book, and it has left me with one of my tenderest memories: swapping the same much-read copy of it with each other and discussing Aldiss’s ideas.

Stories of Your Life and Others

by Ted Chiang

I still read sci-fi, but now I swap books with my son, who’s well-versed in it and often recommends books to me, like this one. I was highly impressed by this collection, and especially by the story “Story of Your Life.” It’s a fascinating philosophical reflection on the nonlinear nature of time and the role of language in perceiving reality. There’s no fast-moving action here, no blood-curdling adventures, but this story gave me plenty to think about and will remain with me.

The Three-Body Problem

by Cixin Liu

Any sci-fi fan who dreams of escaping into an epic represented world—the strange world suspended between collapsing and appearing—has probably read Cixin Liu’s “Remembrance of Earth’s Past” trilogy, of which “The Three-Body Problem” is the first volume. Its sweep and visionary nature caused me to drop my own writing for a time and immerse myself in questions of cosmology, the history of civilization, and the Earth’s future.

As Philip K. Dick would say, there’s more to science fiction than we imagine.



Sarah Sherman Is Grosser Than You Think

2025-12-06 19:06:02

2025-12-06T11:00:00.000Z

We begin deep within a wet, gaping orifice—a laryngeal canal so red and glistening it almost looks diseased. As we rush up and out of it, we hear a jarring, Tarzan-like scream, and we arrive, face to face, with a meaty, waggling tongue, glinting teeth, bulging eyes, and a thin, twitching mustache. These startling human features belong to a round gray moon, whose cratered surface recalls the acne-scarred cheeks of, say, a fortyish weirdo who still lives with his elderly mother. Done with its shrieking, the moon clears its throat and begins to speak. “Sorry about that,” it says, giggling frantically, before the spooky strains of an organ start to play and the camera turns, swooping through the night sky toward a graveyard populated with modelling-clay body parts, plastic detritus, sticks, glitter, and garbage.

In the graveyard, a bare butt pops up from the ground and releases a lusty fart; severed noses and ears spew acid-green snot; oozing, dismembered hands proffer dripping, worm-filled brains, and eyeballs swim in goo. Headstones bearing rude epithets (“Rest in Piss”; “Need Head”) stand in the fetid dirt. It’s “Pee-wee’s Playhouse” crossed with GWAR-style blood-and-guts and a dash of Sid’s torture chamber in Pixar’s “Toy Story.” It’s fun and it’s funny, it’s abrasive and it’s disgusting, it’s sexual but not sexy: it’s an apt opening into the mind and work of Sarah Squirm—the alter ego of the comedian and “Saturday Night Live” cast member Sarah Sherman—and the literal opening of her new HBO comedy special, “Sarah Squirm: Live + in the Flesh.”

On a drizzly night in late August, I attended a taping of this special at the Bell House, the performance venue in Brooklyn’s Gowanus neighborhood. Metal tracks from Rob Zombie and Korn were playing on the theatre lobby’s P.A. system, droning about Dragulas and freaks on leashes, as Sherman’s fans, largely in their twenties and thirties, began to enter the space. The crowd was very Bushwick-alt: more than a couple of the women brought to mind Enid Coleslaw, from Daniel Clowes’s nineties comic “Ghost World,” wearing heavy-framed glasses and ironic vintage shirts, while the men, with their mustaches and tote bags, mostly looked like 2016 Bernie voters (which they likely were). Inside the theatre, a colorfully decorated sick bag was placed on each seat (“I saw Sarah Squirm live + in the flesh and all I got was this ugly barf bag”), recalling the vomit bags handed out at screenings of John Waters’s “Pink Flamingoes,” the 1972 cult classic in which Divine, infamously, eats dog feces.

As I waited for the show to begin, I was pretty sure that I wouldn’t require the barf bag, either literally or metaphorically; I wasn’t the kind of person who was very easily grossed out. (I had, after all, given birth.) And though I wasn’t really familiar with Sherman’s standup, I thought that I knew her style of comedy from “S.N.L.,” where she had become a cast member in 2021. She was the show’s resident weirdo, sure—playing characters like R.F.K., Jr.,’s brain worm in an ectoplasmic rubber bald cap, or an office worker who had her eyeballs replaced with enormous googly eyes to the consternation of her coworkers, or a pompadoured, Jewish Elvis, whose off-key crooning was mixed with Borscht Belt-style asides—but her strangeness was generally of a pretty mild sort. She’d become known for her occasional appearances as herself on the show’s “Weekend Update” segment, wearing loudly clashing clown outfits and good-naturedly roasting the segment’s co-host, Colin Jost; but often, too, she simply played a straight woman—a cute, supporting-character girl in a wig.

Once Sherman began her set, though, storming onstage with her middle fingers raised and immediately insulting the audience (“Shut up! Fuck you!”), I realized that I was in for a more extreme experience than I’d initially imagined. Wearing a colorful polka-dot shirt, a red tie, and voluminous rainbow pants, with her hair cut in a scraggly mullet, Sherman, who is thirty-two, delivered a performance that was almost entirely given over to an abrasive discussion of the abjectness of the human body—mostly her own. She complained at length, with repellent, extremely-close-to-the-mike slurping sound effects, about getting her oversized gym clothes “sucked into” her “hole”; she waxed poetic about her vaginal discharge and her excessive sweating, citing the “wasabi stains” on her T-shirt’s armpits and her underwear that “look like [her] pussy sneezed in it.” She spoke at length of urine and feces, noting that, for her, “pissing and shitting isn’t a binary, it’s a fucking spectrum . . . my piss is so thick and my shit is so runny, no matter what I’m doing in the bathroom, honey, I’m going to number 1.5, hey!” (“What kind of comedy show did you think you were seeing tonight?” she demanded, as the audience groaned and laughed.) Body hair, too, merited a soliloquy: her pubic thatch is so thick, she said, that it could make for a “wicker goddam basket,” and her nipple hair is “so long I could tie my tits together to get amazing cleavage.”

Toward the end of the show, Sherman projected a PowerPoint video combining real footage and claymation, in which she’s seen in the nude—her bush enormous, her armpit hair kudzu-like, her vulva spread wide, and her labia lips, made of prosthetics, dangling nearly to her feet. “I can’t go to the beach, my lips are so long and distended and disgusting, like knock around between my knees like the pendulum on a grandfather clock,” she began. Her labia, she said, were like a turkey’s wattle, or an open-faced Reuben sandwich, or the jowls of an old English mastiff, “and just as slobbery, too!” On and on she riffed, and the horrifying images onscreen kept coming: Sherman nibbling daintily at those freakish lips before wrestling them into a tiny pair of bikini bottoms, or layering deli meat on her vaginal opening and tossing a jar of thousand island dressing in there for good measure (“my vibrator is a pickle spear and a napkin!”), or opening her legs wide to reveal a mouth that, smiling spookily, spurted out chunky period blood from between its teeth. “Look at the screen!” Sherman yelled at the audience members, many of whom were squealing in horrified glee. Peppering her jokes with the macho standup comedian’s “D’you know what I mean?” and “You kidding me?” while delivering utterly confronting, utterly unremitting female body horror, she was like some bizarro blend of Rodney Dangerfield and Hannah Wilke.

After the taping, I went to say hi to Sherman in her dressing room, where she sat huddled on a couch next to her long-term boyfriend, Dan Sloan, a sweet-faced academic. Up close, she was slight and very pretty. She had taken off her polka-dot clown top and remained in a white undershirt, and with her glittery eye shadow and her hair swept off her face, she suddenly looked a lot like a nice upper-middle-class Jewish girl from Long Island, which is, in one sense, exactly what she is. Rising from the sofa, she greeted me with a hug, only to draw back almost immediately. “I’m so sorry—am I really sweaty?” she asked, seeming genuinely worried.

It wasn’t a foregone conclusion that Sarah Sherman would end up becoming Sarah Squirm. She grew up in Great Neck, right behind the Long Island location of the Peter Luger Steak House restaurant. Her father owns a children’s-clothing company and takes the L.I.R.R. every day to his office in the garment district; her mother is a retired teacher; her younger brother, who now lives in the city, works in market research. She’s still very close to all of them, even though, as she notes, her parents are “hot, and I’m sort of reactionary to them.” As a teen, she was a good student and great at sports, running track and working summers as a lifeguard and swim teacher at the local pool. She wasn’t one of the popular kids, exactly, but she was well liked. “I was funny, and when you’re funny you can be really socially mobile,” she told me. She even got asked out by the quarterback one year, but she wasn’t interested. What she was interested in, from a young age, was being a comedian.

Her earliest influences as a kid came from network television. She was obsessed with sitcoms like “Seinfeld” and “The Nanny”—mainstream shows prickly with tri-state Jewish humor. (In her set, she still uses the slap-bass twang of the “Seinfeld” theme to punctuate some of her punch lines.) Later, watching aughts cable, she got into sharp-tongued women comedians like Joan Rivers and Kathy Griffin; she discovered the former on E!’s “Fashion Police” and the latter on the Bravo reality show “My Life on the D-List.” Sherman began going to the city with friends to watch standup (“We’d be, like, ‘Louis C.K. is doing a drop-in at the Creek and the Cave!’ ”) and joined the improv club at Great Neck South High School, putting up comedy shows in the basement of the local library, which was home to a youth community center called Levels. For many, this would have meant social suicide (“If you went to Levels, you had a taint on you,” Ronald Bronstein, a fellow Great Neck native who executive-produced Sherman’s special and was instrumental in getting it made, told me.) Sherman didn’t mind hanging with the freaks, though. “I thought Levels was cool because everyone was a crazy fucking loser,” she said. Her comedy cohort in high school also gave her the nickname “Squirm”: “They called me ‘Squirmin’ Sherman’ because I was sort of skinny and gross.”

She went to Northwestern for college, hoping that its proximity to Chicago would allow her to do comedy, but she found the school rigid and staid. It was only in the mid-twenty-tens, after she graduated with a degree in theatre and art history, then moved to the city from Evanston, that she began pursuing standup in earnest. “I got addicted to it, and I’d do a hundred open mikes every night,” she said. She ran with a group of noise musicians and performance artists who wanted to push their art forms to their extremes. “We put up this night called Helltrap Nightmare and I’d make posters that were, like, a vagina mouth smiling with a tampon hanging out, or uterus eyeballs,” she said. Sherman’s close friend, the comedian Jack Bensinger, who still opens for her when she takes her standup on tour, met her in Chicago around that time. “She was totally, exactly the same as she is now,” he said. The avant-garde gross-out vibe of “Live + in the Flesh” was already all there.

With its insistent, obsessive patter, not to mention its unrelenting commitment to in-your-face vulgarity, Sherman’s comedy is hardly for everyone. “On the road, people walk out, especially during the Power Point stuff,” Bensinger told me. “Her challenge is that she’s this cute girl from ‘S.N.L.’ who makes fun of Colin Jost, and then you go see her show . . .” he trailed off. This made sense to me. Sherman’s performance style—loud, grating, unyielding—can be exhausting, and at the taping, I found myself wondering occasionally if poop and pee, blood and sweat, deserved quite that much airtime or volume. Sherman made me laugh, but the laughter was often mixed with shock and unease, as if my experience of my own body was being defamiliarized. I suppose that some of this was the point. Here I was, she seemed to be telling me, a sack of flesh pretending to be a person—a woman, no less—and wouldn’t it be something if we all just stopped pretending? “She used to have this joke that I think she still does on the road where she goes, ‘It’s not funny, but it’s interesting,’ ” Bensinger said. Sherman is a comedian, but she’s also dead serious in her relentlessness. In the manner of performance art, she tests her audience, trying to make a point about the limits of acceptability and respectability.

Sarah Sherman on stage with set decorations including eyeballs finegers and intestines.
Photograph by Greg Endries / HBO

One weekend morning in September, Sherman was at a studio in Brooklyn’s Industry City neighborhood, taping the introductory segment to her special. In the segment, John Waters, playing a stage manager, arrives at Sherman’s dressing room to tell her that she’s “on in five,” but is alarmed to find her still “indecent”—just a pile of goo on the floor, dotted with teeth and eyeballs. “She’s not even in hair and makeup yet!” Waters grouses, annoyed. When I arrived, Waters, wearing his signature skinny mustache and a headset, was mugging disgustedly for the cameras, acting out the moment he encounters goo-Sherman. (The animated gunk heap, which would turn into the real-life Sherman, with one eyeball a-dangle, would be added in post-production.) “Just stay on him for all the repulsive reactions,” Bronstein, the executive producer, suggested to Cody Critcheloe, the special’s director.

Sherman, in her polka-dots-and-rainbow performance outfit, told me that she got Waters to participate in the special by sending him a fan letter. “I stalked him. I wrote him and begged him to do this,” she said. “Anyone involved in this project is someone I’ve hunted down. Hunted.”

“I call her the gore-gore girl,” said Waters, who was taking a break on a director’s chair while a shot was being set up. “She likes that sort of thing.”

“I’m nice. I’m very polite and cleaned up!” Sherman protested. “I smell a lot better than I look!”

“We both try to startle people and make them laugh,” Waters said. “We try to use humor to change people’s minds and make them accept stuff, but at the same time not preach to them in any way.”

“Laughing is a moment of identification,” Sherman agreed. “You can trick people into understanding and connecting with you.”

While Waters was back in front of the camera, trying out different deliveries of the line “That’s not a comedian, that’s a rash with an agent!,” Bensinger was hovering on the edge of the set. As Sherman’s most trusted comedy adviser, he’d been hired as an executive producer on the special. “He’s the funniest person in the world,” Sherman told me, in a stage whisper, as Bensinger pretended not to hear.

Had their relationship ever been romantic? “Still is,” Bensinger said, straight-faced.

Sherman looked at him. “I have always wondered if you’ve ever had a romantic thought about me,” she said.

Bensinger paused. “I tried to,” he finally said. He laughed. “You do a good job of desexualizing yourself.”

On a Sunday afternoon in mid-October, I visited the Gramercy office of Central, the production company that Bronstein co-heads alongside Josh Safdie and Eli Bush. The movie “Marty Supreme,” starring Timothée Chalamet, which Safdie directed and Bronstein co-wrote, was completed and set to be released on Christmas. (Full disclosure: I play a bit part in the movie.) Bronstein was using the relatively free stretch before the film’s release to wrap up “Live + in the Flesh.”

Now he was sitting on the couch at the office’s editing suite next to his teen daughter, Faye, a big fan of “S.N.L.” and Sherman. (“We were on our way to Rosh Hashanah, and he asked me, ‘Do you know this person?’ ” she told me, recounting Bronstein’s path to working with Sherman. “I was, like, ‘Dude, what the hell are you doing with your life, get in touch with her!’ ”) Sherman, in red-and-white striped pants and a “Texas Chainsaw Massacre” trucker cap, was curled up on a rolling chair next to the editor Luca Balser, who was making final cuts on the special. The night before, she’d done “S.N.L.”; the day after my visit, she’d be travelling to the Midwest to open for Adam Sandler, who was doing a run of arena standup shows in the area, and she was in an exhausted and vulnerable mood.

“I went to sleep at 5 A.M.,” she said. She had felt too tired to come in and work on the edit of the special, but Bronstein, she complained, had told her the night before, when he’d come to watch the “S.N.L.” taping with Faye, that she had to. “I couldn’t believe you had the gall,” she told him, mock incensed. “I had just gotten off TV, and I’m still in my business suit as Woman No. 3 . . .” She paused. “This is my impression of what I do on the show now: ‘What? No!’ ‘Stop! You’re being crazy!’ ‘Hey!’ ”

Sherman still loves doing “S.N.L.,” she told me, but lately she’d been “missing wilding out a little bit,” and feeling some frustration about mostly doing pretty-girl-in-a-wig comedy—what I’ve seen fans call her “Sarah Normal” mode, and what she herself called “post-lobotomy sarah” in a recent Instagram mirror selfie, in which she sported a tight tank top and flowing blonde locks. That week, she said, “I was all pissed off because I wasn’t getting my rocks off.” Along with the writer Martin Herlihy and Bensinger, who’d recently started writing for the show as well, she’d worked on a bit that she loved: a “Weekend Update” appearance in which she talks with Colin Jost about Kim Kardashian’s new faux-pubic-hair Skims thong. “We were laughing so much. I was, like, ‘It’s stolen Ashkenazi valor.’ But they pulled it before table read.”

“That would have been so good!” Faye protested, from the couch.

“They said it was too dirty,” Sherman lamented.

This dirtiness is the crux of the matter for Sherman. In a sanitized, A.I.-forward, Kardashian-centric world, in which women are only allowed to have hair on their bodies if it’s appended to a gimmicky “micro string thong” retailing for thirty-two dollars, Sherman’s weird, gloopy, D.I.Y. comedy is a kind of oasis, suggesting that another way is possible. “I’m from Long Island, which is a very aesthetically oppressive place to grow up in, where on their sixteenth birthday girls got boob jobs, nose jobs, straightening their hair with keratin treatments,” she told me. “I talk about my body being disgusting because I truly still feel that.”

Talking about this provides a certain freedom. But Sherman still finds it challenging, sometimes, to balance her two personas—the shamelessly revolting standup and the more restrained “S.N.L.” performer. Sitting at the editing console, she visibly drooped, and Bronstein attempted a pep talk. “You know when you see the stable of Cassavetes actors show up on ‘Columbo’ episodes, you understand the economics of that,” he said. “You’re still really good on the show.”

“I’m so bad at doing both, though,” she said.

Bronstein tried another tack. “There were so few things that could reach me in Great Neck at age twelve that were coming from a different set of values,” he said. “Whether it was Judy Tenuta or Emo Philips, I was, like, ‘Oh, my God, these are weirdos, and I could see them on TV!’ It was very few and far between, but you are filling that gap.” He paused, warming up to a crescendo: “Nobody else is filling that gap! The world has a certain set of roles for you to fill, and if you don’t feel you fit into any of those preordained slots, it’s a harsh, ugly place. You don’t know where to put yourself when you’re young, so if you see somebody on your TV who clearly doesn’t fit into any of those categories, it’s very rare and powerful.”

Sherman wiped a tear from her cheek. Then she laughed. “I’m a raw nerve today!” she said. Turning to Balser, the editor, she asked, “When the eyeball pops back into the skull, should we add a sound effect?” ♦

America’s “Bad Emperor” Problem

2025-12-06 13:06:02

2025-12-06T04:59:00.000Z

Listen and subscribe: Apple | Spotify | Google | Wherever You Listen

Sign up to receive our twice-weekly News & Politics newsletter.

The Washington Roundtable discusses President Donald Trump’s health and the signs of his age-related decline: a noticeably reduced work schedule, fewer public appearances, and more rambling, profanity-laden outbursts. The panel examines how this undermines Trump’s self-styled image of strength and vigor, what lessons about aging Presidents can be drawn from the Biden and Reagan Administrations, and why America may be facing what scholars refer to as the “Bad Emperor” problem in Chinese history. “When strongmen get weak, watch out,” the staff writer Jane Mayer says.

This week’s reading:

War Is Peace, the Dozing Don Edition,” by Susan B. Glasser

Mikie Sherrill Intends to Move Fast,” by Gabriel Debenedetti

The Undermining of the C.D.C.,” by Dhruv Khullar

In the Line of Fire,” by Benjamin Wallace-Wells

Tune in wherever you get your podcasts.